Peñaflor Vs Outdoor Clothing
Peñaflor Vs Outdoor Clothing
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
498
499
BRION, J.:
Petitioner Manolo A. Peñaflor (Peñaflor) seeks the
reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) decision1 dated
December 29, 2006 and its resolution2 dated March 14,
2007, through the present petition for review on certiorari
filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The assailed CA
decision affirmed the September 24, 2002 decision3 of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that in turn
reversed the August 15, 2001 decision4 of the Labor
Arbiter.5
The Factual Antecedents
Peñaflor was hired on September 2, 1999 as
probationary Human Resource Department (HRD)
Manager of respondent Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing
Corporation (Outdoor Clothing or the company). As HRD
head, Peñaflor was expected to (1) secure and maintain the
right quality and quantity of people needed by the
company; (2) maintain the harmonious relationship
between the employees and management in a role that
supports organizational goals and individual aspirations;
and (3) represent the company in labor cases or
proceedings. Two staff members were assigned to work
with him to assist him in undertaking these functions.
Peñaflor claimed that his relationship with Outdoor
Clothing went well during the first few months of his
employment; he designed and created the company’s Policy
Manual, Personnel Handbook, Job Expectations, and
Organizational Set-
_______________
500
_______________
6 Rollo, p. 161.
501
502
_______________
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Manolo A. Peñaflor
9 Id., at p. 204.
10 Supra note 4.
503
504
_______________
13 Supra note 3.
505
_______________
14 Supra note 1.
15 Supra note 2.
506
507
_______________
19 Rollo, p. 9.
508
509
_______________
22 Supra note 8.
23 CA Rollo, p. 101.
24 Outdoor Clothing never disputed that there was a fight between
Syfu and Lee in any of the pleadings it filed before the labor arbiter, the
NLRC, and the CA. It was only in the Memorandum it filed before the
Court that it denied such allegation.
510
_______________
512
_______________
513
voluntarily resigned; his immediate complaints
characterize him as one who deeply felt that he had been
wronged.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petitioner’s petition for
review on certiorari, and REVERSE the decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 87865
promulgated on December 29, 2006 and March 14, 2007,
respectively. We REINSTATE the decision of the labor
arbiter dated August 15, 2001, with the MODIFICATION
that, due to the strained relations between the parties,
respondents are additionally ordered to pay separation pay
equivalent to the petitioner’s one month’s salary.
Costs against the respondents.
SO ORDERED.
_______________
NLRC that the complaint was filed on May 20, 2000. Either way, the
Court believes that Peñaflor sought recourse against his illegal dismissal
within a reasonable period.